Coverage table on the website

[Stéfan van der Walt]

Hi everyone,

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Josh Warner <silvertrumpet999 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Should function-for-function feature parity, even where this is not
> particularly useful, be a goal?  That's what I get from this table.
>
[...]
>
> As a reformed Matlab user, I personally prefer the general Python way which
> is not "everything and the kitchen sink" in one massive package, but more
> pick-and-choose from a diverse toolkit for the problem(s) at hand.  But
> that's just me.

Thanks for your thoughts, Josh, I agree with the points you make.

In my recent talk at EuroSciPy, I mentioned that the MATLAB
compatibility table was probably a mistake on my part.  At that time,
I was trying to find a way forward with skimage that would help us to
grow, and providing an easy route of transitioning for users from
other platforms seemed like a worthwhile goal.

Looking back, especially at my experience with Octave, I realize that
trying to imitate another package squashes much innovation and does
not lead to well-designed or Pythonic solutions.  In the mean time,
the core team has grown, with a very active role being played by
excellent coders such as Tony, Johannes, Andreas, and others, so I
feel much less pressured to continue along that path.

I think the compatibility table could still be useful as a list of
"pointers", but unless someone updates it soon, we should think about
removing it.  That role can also be played by the user guide
(unfortunately, one of our weak points, which I'd love to address).

Stéfan